Dear Editor,
Mr Malcolm Harripaul’s missive (‘The taxi drivers cannot be blamed for charging US$20… SN, Aug 5) contains inaccuracies and value judgments different from mine and those of most Guyanese. Mr Harripaul refers to me as a PPP propagandist. I am not now nor ever was a propagandist for the PPP or any political party. During the struggle against the dictatorship, I supported all the then opposition parties and worked diligently in Guyana and abroad for the restoration of democracy. I did not participate in false propaganda activities. My participation in the anti-dictatorial struggle was honest and truthful hitting the streets of New York almost daily from 1977 to 1992 with literature, etc, and my colleagues can attest to that fact. I confess I gave financial support to all of the parties and partook in fundraising for them as well as the PCD. But that in no way made me biased towards any political party. If my activities for democracy against an oppressive dictatorship are considered propaganda, I plead guilty as charged and seek the highest form of punishment. I have remained rational and open minded towards the parties and also assisted them in their electoral campaign. When free and fair elections were restored in 1992, I did not take sides in that campaign. I was involved in conducting opinion surveys. And since 1992, I have not campaigned for or supported any political party.
Mr Harripaul, on the other hand, has openly endorsed APNU, and has campaigned for it utilizing a propaganda mode. There is nothing wrong with Mr Harripaul supporting the APNU as Guyana is a democracy and people are free to support a party of their choice. However, he should not paint me as a propagandist as I have no ties whatsoever to any party.
With regard to charging people for rescuing them, it is incorrect for Mr Harripaul to say I am focusing on taxi drivers. The taxis are not the issue regarding the CAL accident. But as a patriotic Guyanese, I am concerned about the image of the country being tarnished when a driver demands money to assist a person in a life and death situation. In America, that can be considered a crime.
Mr Harripaul clearly has different value judgments from me and almost every other Guyanese. The way I and most Guyanese were raised, we don’t charge people for assisting them when they are in distress. My parents raised me differently; I was taught to be kind, compassionate and loving and to share as well as to help those in danger. People were suffering from shock, trauma and distress right after the plane crash. You don’t charge them to render assistance. And US$20 is fleecing them for what in Guyana is known as a short drop.
Fortunately, not everyone is condoning fleecing. There were also good Samaritans, many of whom rushed to the scene to assist the victims. Some transported victims to emergency centres without seeking remuneration. Usually in an aviation accident, the airline and or the government offers compensation to providers of transport. I received confirmation that taxis who provided transportation for passengers from the CAL crash were compensated generously. I would assume the driver who fleeced $20 from a traumatized passenger, also received further compensation, and if he did, it was a double dip. So contrary to what Mr Harripaul believes, paying for gas was not an issue. And even if paying for gas was an issue, fleecing people of US$20 for a quick ride cannot be justified.
Mr Harripaul is the only Guyanese I know who is not embarrassed by a taxi driver charging someone to rescue her. Guyanese everywhere are embarrassed by this type of behaviour as they are embarrassed by the behaviour of the dictatorship.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram